[plt-dev] `rico' and ".rkt"

From: Carl Eastlund (carl.eastlund at gmail.com)
Date: Mon Feb 15 14:00:13 EST 2010

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
> I agree.  I simply don't see the point to moving past the three-letter
> suffix space.
> For what it's worth, .rck and .rkt don't seem to mean much (Google for
> "<ext> file extension"), other than this:
> http://www.econsultant.com/file-extensions-r/rkt-file-extension-rocksim-rocket-design-file.html
> which is a niche we don't really clash with.
> Shriram

I think Jon Rafkind made a good point on IRC, which is that as our
extensions proliferate we don't want to end up with a set like
OCaml's: .ml, mli, .cmo, .cma, .cmi, and .cmxa.  Given a directory
with files of all those extensions, an outsider will have no idea what
language they correspond to -- except possibly the .ml one, because ML
is the full langauge name -- let alone which aspect of OCaml each
corresponds to.

If we have ".ss" and ".rkt" and ".scrbl" and ".zo", it won't be clear
what language any of them correspond to, nor that they are all
related.  If we have ".racket", at least that one extension will be
readable.  If they were ".plt-scheme", ".plt-racket", ".plt-scribble",
and ".plt-compiled", their purpose and relationship would be much
clearer.  Even without the "plt-" would give half that benefit
(purpose, but not relationship).


Posted on the dev mailing list.